View Single Post
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 11, 2:16*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
> >>>>>>>>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> no regard for the interests of other species.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> >>>>>>>>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> >>>>>>>>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
> >>>>>>>>>> members.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
> >>>>>>>>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

>
> >>>>>>>>> No, they are not.

>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, they are. *You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
> >>>>>>>> to their species. *That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
> >>>>>>>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
> >>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)

>
> >>>>>>> No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
> >>>>>>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
> >>>>>>> not speciesism.

>
> >>>>>> That's not what you're doing.

>
> >>>>> Why not?

>
> >>>> You tell us what your motive is.

>
> >>> I don't understand this.

>
> Yes, you do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The "ar" passivists
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> >>>>>>>>>>>> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "speciesist."

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's not.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

>
> >>>>>>>> I do understand full well what it is. *In fact, it's sophistry..

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to

>
> >>>>>>>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Why not?

>
> >>>>>>>> I've explained that to you before, too. *The argument from species
> >>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.

>
> >>>>>>> The argument from species normality is flawed.

>
> >>>>>> No, it isn't. *It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.

>
> >>>>> Wrong.

>
> >>>> Nope; right.

>
> >>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?

>
> >> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." *Do
> >> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
> >> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.

>
> > I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
> > normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
> > determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
> > species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
> > experiments which show this premise to be problematic.

>
> Have a go at it.
>


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
> >>>> pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
> >>>> animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.

>
> >>> It would probably do both.

>
> >> No.

>
> >>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>
> >>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>
> >> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
> >> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>
> > Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
> > deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
> > on you to explain why.

>
> Nope. *As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
> make a case for why they're wrong. *The burden is on you. *The
> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
> the champion; your position is the challenger. *The challenger must
> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
> That's how it works.
>


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics. If someone believes that they are a member of a special
group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
on them to establish that.

> The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
> thing you must demonstrate. *You lose.